Who's sorry now?
Sion Jenkins was acquitted today after 9 years of repeated trial, retrial and appeal for the murder of Billie-Jo above.
If the slap he took in the court today at the Old Bailey from her natural family is anything to go by, they think he's got away with murder.
They may or may not be right. The jurors couldn't agree. The police have asked for anyone with further information to come forward but have not said they are looking for anyone else. Evidence of domestic violence that was suppressed as prejudicial to the trial is now coming out, which of course may be no more than prurient gossip. Either way, under the law, he's acquitted. And she's dead.
But am I alone in thinking that her "natural" family must bear their share of guilt?
Had they shown a bit more care and attention to her BEFORE she got fostered out, she would be alive today. If only because she would not have been there, then. Whoever killed her.
In my book it's a bit late to be screaming "Child Killer" from the visitors gallery nine years after she was murdered at her foster home. The time for action was before she was given to strangers.
Perhaps searching their own hearts would be more productive...
PS 20.55 I apologise to the BBC for stress on their servers for linking to and not hosting the image of Billie-Jo. Now rectified.
posted by Gavin Corder at 4:23 PM
7 Comments:
Without hearing the evidence it is hard to say whether or not he was guilty, but the jury had the best chance to make that decision. Her real parents need need to go on one of Tony Blair's parenting programs, which unfortunately is too late for the girl.
Yeah, who knows.
But stands to reason that the would-be lynch mob in the public gallery didn't care for and protect her when she needed it.
So the authorities took her away from life presumed worse(at the time) with her "relatives", who now shout with such conviction....
Hard to judge the real parents without knowing ALL the reasons and facts as to ewhy she was fostered; they have every right to 'attack' the decision whatever happened before: they didn't kill her and they think he did, simple as that.
"The jurors couldn't agree"
"The police have asked for anyone with further information to come forward but have not said they are looking for anyone else"
"Evidence of domestic violence that was suppressed as prejudicial"...even more reason to be bitter.
From day 1 I had a gut feeling that he was guilty and he killed her to prevent her revealing his sexual advances to her, which she had threatened to do...I must stress that is MY thought and has NO basis WHATSOEVER in any real evidence etc.
P.S. Want to why Jill Dando was murdered...and by whom?
Speculation about a possible motive for murder will go on, no doubt, till the cows come home but there is only a fixed amount of hard evidence.
Shy,...the cows come home to be milked...lawyers and journalists are doing just that.
wELL SAID gAVIN
I don't know what it is about you Span, but you seem to have a knack of seeming to miss the point.
My point was that had the natural family taken all possible care of the child she would not be dead now. Therefore their reaction to Jenkins' acquittal is misplaced. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, if not in theirs. They are innocent in their own eyes (and yours it would seem) but not in mine. They didn't kill her, but they didn't keep her from harm either.
Therefore my point stands, they must bear their share of guilt for lack of care, even though it has not been established who actually killed her.
Post a Comment
<< Home